White House Backs Away from Net Neutrality; Hard Left Interest Groups Plod On
by Capitol ConfidentialWith the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) expected to conclude this week a comment-seeking exercise relevant to net neutrality rules proposed last fall by Julius Genachowski, top telecommunications and tech policy observers are claiming that the FCC Chairman could be set to receive a major blow. Not only is the momentum in the net neutrality debate increasingly shifting away from proponents, but a number of experts say the White House itself is souring on Genachowski’s plans—a major knock that could signal the death of efforts to advance net neutrality, at least for now.
Historically, net neutrality had been treated as a top policy priority by President Barack Obama, a former classmate and friend of Genachowski. But recently, that has appeared to change.
In October, Susan Crawford, a strong supporter of net neutrality, resigned from the White House. It has since been rumored that economic adviser Larry Summers wanted her gone due to concerns about her facilitating the tagging of Obama advisers as overly radical by virtue of her own agenda.
Numerous Democrats (including 72 in the House) have raised questions about the policy and/or spoken out against it.
In addition, multiple groups with strong connections to Democrats and progressives, including minority and women’s organizations, have begun to raise flags regarding the possible impact of net neutrality rules.
Meanwhile, net neutrality—which supporters have sought to paint as consumer-friendly policy advocated by ordinary people, for ordinary people—has increasingly been tagged as a policy that would primarily help line the pockets of companies like Google, whose employees donated in significant amounts to Obama.
Last week, a federal court rapped the FCC’s knuckles for overstepping its authority in requiring Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to treat all traffic on their networks, including that related to often illegal file-sharing, equally.
Finally, Genachowski was forced to ask Congress for more time to work on a national broadband plan, underlining the FCC’s inability to get work already on its plate done under his tenure.
For months, noise has continually been made that instituting net neutrality would detract from a major public policy objective around which bipartisan consensus already exists: Advancing broadband deployment, a goal that advocates say would have demonstrably positive effects on the economy, jobs, health care and even the environment.
The bottom line appears now to be that net neutrality, chief advocates of it and the overall approach taken by FCC leadership have created a major headache for the White House—one it does not need when trying to finish the job on big ticket items like health care. As such, the White House is now reported to be one step away from throwing in the towel.
Net neutrality advocates, however, haven’t given up fighting yet. Genachowski, for his part, has been described by observers as “doubling down” on his backing of net neutrality. Save The Internet, the hard-left group that some telecommunications policy experts describe as a “de facto front group for Google” and one tech policy observer described as “overtly Marxist,” is running a petition drive to garner hundreds of thousands of signatures in favor of net neutrality to the FCC before the comment-seeking period ends on Thursday.
Other, anti-net neutrality groups are similarly urging opponents of Genachowski’s plans to contact the FCC and provide their views early this week. The FCC is taking comments through a variety of media. Citizens are encouraged to provide their views on net neutrality by submitting comments to the FCC via its website. The FCC is also on Twitter and can be contacted by phone on 1-888-CALL-FCC and by fax on 1-866-418-0232. The FCC has advised that comments should be submitted before the end of the day on Thursday.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
57 Comments
This piece seems very similar to the 'Obama Back-Tracking on Net Neutrality?' piece from November 5th…
Or am I missing something?
We need a Department Of Da Truth, and I bees in charge! REV Wright
REV,
A cold and sorry statement given the severe suffering in Haiti at the moment.
Can anyone explain why the far left is so in favor of net neutrality? I don't think I understand what the bill proposes to do to us. I read a lot of articles in the MSM, but it was never clearly explained in any that I read. When I saw Waxman was behind it I figured it was a Trojan Horse in some respect.
I see this as give & take. BO has probably worked an off the record deal with legislatures to get something else, "I'll drop the Net thing if you give me my Health Care Monstrosity" (I guess we'll have to wait for Reid's memoirs to see which voice he used/sac). I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see this come up again, later. Maybe at his impeachment trial (one can still dream, right?…RIGHT? Wait, is dreaming under government regulations now too?????/ not so sure sac is off).
Scott Brown
It's about control, everything he wants is about control. The Left does not believe that the common person (Conservatives) is educated or smart enough to know what is best for themselves, even though the ratio of college & post graduate degrees actually favor us dumb, knuckle dragging, Bible thump'n, racist Rednecks. (A.D.D. moment: I wish I could get a sunburn & thus have a true redneck right now, I'M FREEZING! DAMN GLOBAL WARMING!)
Indy, they know who you are, where you are and they know what you said. 0_0
I'm past caring.
Meh agreed, can't hide so why sweat it
I just took 30 question online test at the American Revolution Center regarding constituional and revolutionary history. Three questions were 'pop' questions. I consider myself to be fairly knowledgable about the founding of this great country, my score in the eighties was embarasing. History was one of my favoirite subjecs t It was a wake up call. What really alarmed me scared b.i
Obama and his democratic henchmen can say what they want and do what they want. They can tell us up is down and down is up. What they can't do is avoid that inconvenient thing called REALITY, which is coming to bite them squarely in the ass. Their insane policies about international affairs, the economy, the environment, the war on 'man caused disasters', take your pick are all destined to be miserable failures in time. Some already see the writing on the wall while others will continue to be willfully illiterate, it will all become apparent to all. My hope is that the republic is still here when the big dose of reality hits.
I have a Master of Science degree in Telecommunications Management. This would be a disaster for Telecom services providers and would inevitably lead to two things that would affect all customers of these companies:
1) Slower internet speeds.
2) Higher prices/rates for internet service.
The Internet is designed to provide higher priorities to certain types of data packets. However, providers groom their networks based upon the size of their networks and prioritization of packets of data. File sharing services use up large amounts of bandwidth, are likely illegal, and can often slow down all other Internet traffic. Comcast and other providers limit the amount of their networks that can be hobbled by these types of data packets. Google doesn't care. As they and their low-priority data become the 800-lb gorilla riding the Internet, they want their traffic to be given equal priority, despite that the type of data that they provide is of relatively little value and is low priority in most network software. Net neutrality would cause sluggish internet speeds and requires massive additional investment by telecommunications companies. More big government run amok and clogging up the entire system!
This is about more control by 'big brother' AGAIN. Net neutrality would be a direct violation of Freedom of Speech, which, as I recall, is Unconstitutional. (except under the Democrat/Liberal (__*__)s. /sarc)
Anytime you have somebody or something looking over your shoulder, and watching every move you make, is just another step toward socialism..enough already!
is this not a hit against talk radio and conservative broadasters?
another way of taking more freedom from us. their day is coming fall 2010.
Fear Mongering Doom Prophet-in-chief will assure that you're always looking over your shoulder.
You is? Anyways, nobody axed you.
This is a case of leftist activists employing FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) to solve a problem which does not exist. NN will stifle competition and reduce quality of service for everyone.
more obozo incompetence and corruption
They may back away from net neutrality for the time being, but like government run health care, they will be back until they get it. Rust never sleeps.
The Republican party is embarrassingly ineffective at stopping anything. It is a victory for the Republicans if they get something postponed.
There is no way this bunch of leftist ideologues are going to risk further "recoil" from the electorate by pushing legislation. They have backed off of "cap and trade" for this reason. They are hanging by a thread with "socialized health care". They see the signs are are scared to death. Look at the dire involvements in Mass with Coakley. Net Neutrality is on the gallows…for now !
I believe that Brown will defeat Coakley as a very strong sign the country is swinging back to center right!
Drudge report conservatives and their anti-liberal religion has obviously arrived. Once again the political machine that controls the minds of Conservatives only needs accuse liberals of supporting one side to manipulate these drones to support the other.
This is not liberal or conservative issue. Do any of you actually form your own opinions? ..not that our opinions matter anymore, thanks to the Conservative Christian Obscenity Task Force. Tax money for the government to watch porn all day.
watch this: http://www.versu.ro/Pinguinul%20Andra-3307.html
If only they called it the "net censorship and oligarchy largess" law…
It is obvious to casual observers, i.e.- democrat congressmen that anything initiated during the barry-oh single term by "regular people" for the "good of consumers" is most certainly an obamascam of billion or trillion dollar proportions
At some point, there were rules in play that would force ISPs to take down anything that anyone complained about as having been plagiarized. Sounds good on the surface, but they would have been required to do so on complaint alone in order to be economically viable because the alternative would be to go through the legal process of determining valid and invalid claims. The effect on sites that carry what some would consider divisive or controversial material would be chilling. Imagine if rather than merely troll the Bigs, lefty trolls were able to get content removed simply by complaining about it?
Thank you! Your concise explanation helped me understand the dangers of "net neutrality". Never really understood the issue until now. Because Big Libs supported it, my reaction was that it must be bad. Now I have a better idea of why it is bad.
Again, thank you.
[...] called it the Obama-Google Net Neutrality plan, but that’s not entirely the case anymore: the administration is wimping out and cutting its losses on this diastrous idea. According to BigGovernment.com, the only people left [...]
[...] called it the Obama-Google Net Neutrality plan, but that’s not entirely the case anymore: the administration is wimping out and cutting its losses on this diastrous idea. According to BigGovernment.com, the only people left [...]
from wnd….Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions
if they can't get there way one way move on to another…..castrate cass is what we really need….
Amazing the arrogance of this administration. Just was listening to Beck and John Stossel was telling about a story he is doing that a window company is getting some huge amount of stimulas money because the wife of one of Odumbos stooges works there. I mean Odumbo is more of a crook then Nixon for Gods sake. Well I can understand there arrogance as the press will never cover any negative stories on -Zero. This is sad the MSM is useless.
[...] called it the Obama-Google Net Neutrality plan, but that’s not entirely the case anymore: the administration is wimping out and cutting its losses on this diastrous idea. According to BigGovernment.com, the only people left [...]
I can explain what the FCC wants to do. It wants to regulate the internet. As someone said 'net neutrality is an issue in search of a problem'. Whenever the government gets involved they create problems and then create solutions that don't work. Let the free market regulate the internet. I am anti-net neutrality. If telco's or ISP's limit access then in a free market a competitor will arise as a solution. Gov't regultions make entry into a market harder supporting crony capitalism. Let's get back to the constitution and the enumerated powers.
People rail against net neutrality, as though it is some type of controlling or censorship mechanism. Net Neutrality came about because of the desire of telecom/cable companies to charge you, the consumer, *more* based on the type of your internet usage. Telecom advocates (like several posters on this blog) would like to return to the old monopolistic days of AT&T, where they charge you for everything.
Think your phone bill is high now? Wait until they have the ability to levy surcharges on that itunes file you just bought online. Want to use Google/Bing/Whatever to search for something? Gonna cost you a bit more. Use skype or VOIP to save on phone bills when calling long distance? Open your wallet.
Opponents of net neutrality state that "innovation will be curtailed" and "prices will go up". What a crock…over the last 15 years, has internet access pricing gone up or down? I remember charging customer $2500/month for a T1 back in the late '90s…now, you get that type of bandwidth for $20/month. If innovation has failed, why aren't you still using that 28.8k modem to connect?
Small ISPs can't compete against the telecoms, as they already own the infrastructure. Granted, a good net-neutrality bill will be difficult as an understanding of packet-based technology is key, but please understand the following before jumping on the "net neutrality is horrible" bandwagon:
1. Follow the money. This is about telecoms wanting to charge more based on the type of internet traffic you use.
2. A "neutral" internet is the current status quo of the internet. Opponents to net neutrality are trying to change that.
3. Net Neutrality is designed to *not* allow telecoms to levy charges based on where you browse, what servics you use, or what files you download.
Hi,
It is hard to be heard is such places. But I'll try.
I've been in telecom and IT since 1977. We didn't call it that, then.
Given that Washington can call a thistle, a rose. Whether they have done so in this case, I do not know. However, the "real" definition of "Net Neutrality", the technical definition if you will, is quite benign. It requires that the owner of the "wire" allow all traffic regardless of source.
All traffic regardless of source. This is the same requirement the phone companies have. Does anyone remember when you used to have to buy a separate phone line to use a modem or Fax machine? This changed after AT&T was broken up.
I want my ISP to carry all traffic regardless of source. Otherwise my ISP will censor.
Again, Washington can call a pig a horse and get away with it. I do not know if this is the case. But Net Neutrality, if that is what it is, IS A GOOD THING, IMHO.
Would you like to buy another phone line to use a fax machine?
If you say "no" then you want Net Neutrality.
Higher prices? Was that the effect of forcing the Telephone Companies to "signal source" neutral?
Would you like to buy another phone line to use a fax machine?
If you say no then you want Net Neutrality.
Vain you raise some salient points that certainly further research. But if I may ,I have a couple of questions.
Why haven't we seen these 'content' charges before now. The current status quo does not reflect thses content charges as far as I can see.
'Wait until they have the ability to levy surcharges on that itunes file you just bought online. Want to use Google/Bing/Whatever to search for something? Gonna cost you a bit more. Use skype or VOIP to save on phone bills when calling long distance? Open your wallet.'
What abilities to charge are you Why should I beleive the likes od k
Vain has it right. If the Telecoms are allowed to charge more for some content than others, they will be looking at the content even more. I would like more privacy as well as neutrality in my packets.
I don't want my service provider knowing if I am getting pr0n from amsterdam or maps from google.
It is the people who want to stream HD movies that are complaining. Let them buffer the thing first!
Don't slow up my web search for them. This will also squeeze the small service providers.
Mom and Pop local play pod casters wont be able to pay Telecom the upcharge, so their stuff looks a lot worse
than the NY big company showing the same stuff, who can pay the Telecoms.
huh?
Best case for the statist vein running through the net neutrality movement is here: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.heartland….
You're falling into the trap that's been set for you. It's embodied in the work "neutrality". Who could be against that? Shouldn't data carriers stick to doing one thing well and not interfere or prefer one kind of traffic over another? Sure, you and I might agree on this point. But please pay attention to what is being asked for. Net neutrality advocates want to get in between you and your ISP and change that relationship. If you want a broadband connection that's reliable and relatively inexpensive, the only way the provider may be able to acheive that is to limit video streaming, for example. You might say, "but not if that means censorship!" Well, if we're going down the path of claiming that every failure of a producer to accede to a consumer's specific needs is a violation of their rights, then all is lost, as far as I'm concerned.
So what? If I contract with an ISP that's inspecting my packets or they contract with a carrier that's doing the same, that's my problem. Caveat Emptor! These companies are (for the time being) private entities and I cannot make any demands on the services they provide other than to say that I will only pay for a certain kind of service. What TRUELY frightens me is GOVERNMENT involvement in the infrastructure. Take a look at China…that's where net neutrality would lead us.
I'm sorry, what the hell are you people talking about?
Net Neutrality, if anything, would disallow the giant corporations to not put handcuffs on your internet usage, and charge higher rates for faster speeds. It PREVENTS that from happening. No matter how many times you throw around words like "Marxist","socialist","NOBAMA" and other fun right-wing catchwords, the plan as proposed is going to help the average web user. Is it just this Horatio Alger thing, where all right wingers are convinced that one day they'll be millionaires, and hence the need for corporatist protection?
I welcome thoughtful debate. Someone seriously explain to me your policy position here, because judging by the comments section, you have no idea what you're talking about. Enlighten me.
Jay,
Two words for you. Free Markets. Here is another. Choice. If the "giant corporation" in your opinion is charging or handcuffing the consumer, an opportunity presents itself for competition by creating a competing company that levels the "field". That is how it should work.
The debate is about how the government intrusion into the free markets which made this country great. The "right-wing" catchwords are used to illustrate FRUSTRATION with said government and current/past administrations.
You reveal a great deal about yourself by scoffing at the idea that someone having the nerve to dream they have a right to work hard and earn X amount of income!!!
There should be reason to debate the merits of the Constitution/BOR our founding fathers passed on to the PEOPLE of this great REPUBLIC!!!
Hope this enlightens you and here are some parting words….
If you disagree, you are probably a racist…and a homophobe!!!
First, some history. In the beginning, telco's only sold local loops and long-haul facilities; they didn't sell Internet Access per say. However, they obviously have a monopoly on the copper/fiber in the ground. When CLECs came on the scene (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers), the incumbents (ILECS) were forced to lease facilities to the CLECs at a reduced price. Finally, the dinosaur woke up, and realized they needed to get into the Internet Access game. This drove most small-medium ISPs out of business…can't compete when a telco can sell cheaper than you because they own the fully-depreciated copper in the ground. It was a land-rush for market-share, but they didn't mind too much, because everyone has to pay a fee included in our monthly phone bill to support their investments.
Why haven't we seen these 'content' charges before?
They don't exist, but telco's are starting to push for them. This is taking place in the form of peering agreement charges, cross-connect charges, and filtering of packets. Net Neutrality came about as a way to stop this from taking place.
What abilities to charge are you referring to?
It's called packet filtering and shaping. The ability to look into your data, and see what your intentions are. If this bothers you, if anything you should *support* net neutrality.
Now ILECS have critical mass…how many people have their internet connection through the phone/cable company, instead of from a pure ISP? The telcos can (and do) analyze your traffic, and can throttle your connections based on content. They can also charge companies like iTunes for traffic they send to the iTunes website. Guess who ultimately pays for that? You do.
Why should I believe the government will get involved in any thing and not muck it up no matter which party is in control?
If you are intelligent…you shouldn't. We're caught between a rock and a hard spot…higher internet charges from the telcos, or poorly-crafted legislation designed to prevent that, but that stops all packet filtering (some is required to keep thing running). Most non-telco ISP's are lobbying hard for a bill that will make sense. However, wariness is always required. I relish the fact that BO and I see eye-to-eye on very few things, but it is not unexpected.
You see sir, that is exactly my point, technology and investment has been the engine driving the Information Super Highway. Keeping costs down and fueling innovation.<i/>
That is not correct… content is driving internet growth and innovation. I'm not sure what point you are making…internet overcapacity came from two things: the dot-com bubble, and ISP's demand pushing for higher capacity circuits due to increased content and increase users. When the bubble burst, the telco's had huge unused capacity, so they got into the internet access business. They've been looking for ways to get a pay-back on it ever since. I don't fault them for this, but as subsidized as they are already are, they don't need more of my money to do it.
I will need some convincing to allow the fox in the hen house
I don't think I can help you, because you haven't done the following:
1. Followed the money behind removing net neutrality.
2. Understood that the current status quo is net neutrality. Proposed legislation is designed to keep it that way.
I'd like you to show me how net neutrality = government control.
That's simply not true. The net is the single most innovative environment in history – because it has been neutral by custom since it started. Now the ISPs want to start controlling what content can travel over their "pipes."
What if they decide to make BigGovernement.com part of their "Premium" package and make you pay more to have access to this site. Would that be right?
How competitive is your cable company today? Do you really want them to control what you can consume on the net?
"neutral by custom" = unregulated by government
"What if they decide to make BigGovernement.com part of their "Premium" package and make you pay more to have access to this site. Would that be right?"
If my ISP made that foolish decision, I would find another provider in a competitive marketplace.
"How competitive is your cable company today?"
Hardly relevant, as we are talking about internet access. But as far a subscription-based non-broadcast TV service, I have choices in a competitive marketplace, too.
First let me say it is a pleasure to have this exchange with someone who clearly understands the technology and the business aspects of the industry. But I must say that I respectfully disagree with at least some of your observations.
Not sure how long you have been around but your comments indicate you are familiar with divestiture and the honorable Judge Green. Federal regulation has been a major factor in the telecommunication business ever since, there is a reason MCI had its headquarters in Washington. Clearly government regulation will play a role in the future of the industry.
VOTE REPUBLICAN IN MASS. AND SAVE AMERICA FROM THE FASCIST/MARXIST TAKEOVER BID!
If only they called it the "net censorship and oligarchy largess" law…
LOL Well said!
How about the 'Guaranteed to screw everything up health care complexity law to benefit Insurance Companies and piss off citizens"
Republicans should embrace being the party of 'NO'! As is 'HELL NO YOU CAN'T CENSOR OUR FREE SPEECH"!
You failed to read – you failed to learn. I've been in IT & Data Comm for > 25 years. The rules spoken of by Denver would disallow (for example):
1. The situation where Liberal/Marxist/Facist/Muslim sites are free for access, but internet viewers are charged a surcharge every time they access a Conservative site based on the economic 'needs' (kickbacks) of the ISP.
2. Websites run by the ISP are free, but access to their competitor sites is either blocked outright or degraded to the extremely slow performance bandwidth rates.
3. Websites run by companies that provide high-bandwith-type services (such as YouTube or GMail) are charged for sending traffic over the ISP wires or their bandwidth will be restricted – which means they will need to either shut down or pass the costs on to the consumers. This in spite of the fact that it is now common practice for ISPs to knowingly 'overcommit' their bandwidth capabilities in order to drive higher profits by promising higher internet speeds to more customers than they can technically support by assuming that not everyone will want to watch YouTube or NetFlix at the same time or want to do file transfers during 'prime-time', etc.
Opponents of net neutrality want the ISPs to be able to 'ration' ISP bandwidth to customers (see example #1 above) instead of being required to use their government-provided subsidies to actually increase their overall network capacity to be able to provide the service they are currently promising their customers in their service contracts.
What good is a cheap broadband connection that is both censored and restricted to the point of uselessness ? If your ISP blocks you from YouTube, Hula, NetFlix, Google, and any other site the ISP does not 'like' simply because they 'can' (or because the Muslim-in-Chief orders them to) then the internet (and the last best defense against government conversion of our 'free' internet to just one more 'propaganda source') will have been taken and yet one more defense against government tyranny falls to misinformation, liberal propaganda and an uninformed populace.
Please do not be so quick to dismiss the phrase "regardless of source". Net Neutrality also means "without censorship".
So (if I read your post correctly), you're saying that Net Neutrality would allow giant coporations to put handcuffs on your internet usage and charge higher rates for faster speeds ? (You have two negatives that cancel each other out).
Just the opposite – higher costs for faster speed is eminently fair. Net Neutrality would prevent corporations from discriminating on what traffic you can get ("discriminate" = "censor" = "filter") and would prevent the telcos (that own that local-loop) from being allowed to charge discriminatory prices based on web traffic content.
Additionally net neutrality would prevent telcos from limiting your use of the internet connection you pay for by filtering your traffic or by throttling your traffic and preventing you from using the full bandwidth you pay them for.
You failed to read – you failed to learn. I've been in IT & Data Comm for > 25 years. The rules spoken of by Denver would disallow (for example):
1. The situation where Liberal/Marxist/Facist/Muslim sites are free for access, but internet viewers are charged a surcharge every time they access a Conservative site based on the economic 'needs' (kickbacks) of the ISP.
2. Websites run by the ISP are free, but access to their competitor sites is either blocked outright or degraded to the extremely slow performance bandwidth rates.
3. Websites run by companies that provide high-bandwith-type services (such as YouTube or GMail) are charged for sending traffic over the ISP wires or their bandwidth will be restricted – which means they will need to either shut down or pass the costs on to the consumers. This in spite of the fact that it is now common practice for ISPs to knowingly 'overcommit' their bandwidth capabilities in order to drive higher profits by promising higher internet speeds to more customers than they can technically support by assuming that not everyone will want to watch YouTube or NetFlix at the same time or want to do file transfers during 'prime-time', etc.
Opponents of net neutrality want the ISPs to be able to 'ration' ISP bandwidth to customers (see example #1 above) instead of being required to use their government-provided subsidies to actually increase their overall network capacity to be able to provide the service they are currently promising their customers in their service contracts.
What good is a cheap broadband connection that is both censored and restricted to the point of uselessness ? If your ISP blocks you from YouTube, Hula, NetFlix, Google, and any other site the ISP does not 'like' simply because they 'can' (or because the Muslim-in-Chief orders them to) then the internet (and the last best defense against government conversion of our 'free' internet to just one more 'propaganda source') will have been taken and yet one more defense against government tyranny falls to misinformation, liberal propaganda and an uninformed populace.
Please do not be so quick to dismiss the phrase "regardless of source". Net Neutrality also means "without censorship".
I too have a Master's Degree – mine is in Computer Science with 25 years practical experience in systems and network management.
Your arguments are specious.
1. While it may be true that the ISPs might raise prices or lower speeds, the prices should only rise (or speeds lower) to the point that they should have been set to in the first place. Instead of using their government subsidy checks to build faster networks, ISPs have (in the past) chosen to 'over-subscribe' their existing networks and pocket the government checks. It is common knowledge that ISPs have dangerously over-committed their data networks to the point where they cannot handle the explosion of bandwidth demand that is occuring in today's internet.
2. The demand from ISPs for rationing of internet bandwidth is a direct result of the aging infrastructure in the US and the lack of pervasive fiber optic cables (which are expensive to run outside of high-density population centers). The existing 'phone lines' and copper wires were installed long before web sites like YouTube, NetFlix, and Hula existed. The transfer of streaming video over the net – especially high-def video – requires a LOT more bandwidth (measured in bits per second) than does any type of file-transfer protocol.
3. The myth that file-sharing protocols are illegal is akin to the myth that owning a gun is illegal. Some *uses* of a gun (or a knife or a nail-file for that matter) are illegal – some are not. It's the same with file-sharing protocols.
File-sharing protocols need not slow down other traffic – and would not if the ISP networks had kept up with current technology. File-sharing would not be an issue (nor would streaming video) if the ISPs would implement their ability to control bandwidth on a per-customer-basis, but limit *ALL* traffic equally. To give preference to one type of traffic over another (regardless of bandwidth usage) is the heart of the Net Neutrality issue.
From my consumer standpoint, if my contract states that I am paying for 4 Megabits-per-second (Mbps) of Internet download speed, it is not acceptable for my ISP to unilaterally decide that I cannot use my 4 Mbps of bandwidth by downloading the newest copy of Linux so my neighbor can use that same bandwidth to watch NetFlix and that there is not enough bandwidth for both of us to have 4 Mbps because there is not enough bandwidth in the ISP network to go around.
As to the myth that Google will become an 800-lb gorilla, what proof do you have that Google's services are more bandwidth-intensive than YouTube's or those of NetFlix ? I also disagree with you that Google provides low-priority services. Their search engine is key to many businesses because without the Google search engine, those businesses (both brick-and-morter and internet-based) would have fewer (or no) customers since it is Google that allows customers to find companies (think Internet shopping). Indeed the phrase 'to google' something means 'to search' or ' to look it up'. That is hardly low-priority.
Since you mention Comcast, Comcast only limits their users (and does so in violation of their customer service contracts I will add) because the Comcast data network cannot handle the contractual requirements that the Comcast sales team has agreed to provide its customer base. Instead of investing in their data network, Comcast apparently chose to invest its development dollars in CEO and management bonuses or other 'corporate expenses'. Now they cannot meet their contractual commitments to their customers because their customers are now actually attempting to use the data rates that their customers have been paying for. Perhaps Comcast needs more government money ? Another bailout ?
I do agree that net neutrality would require massive additional investment by telecommunications companies – but only in-so-far as those telecommunications companies have been selling bandwidth they do not have to their customers in order to inflate their bottom line.
I do not agree that net neutrality would cause lasting internet sluggishness. There will probably be some initial sluggishness until the telecommunication companies upgrade their networks and stop defrauding their customers with bandwidth promises they cannot keep, but no more sluggishness than we have today during peak traffic times.
You must be logged in to post a comment.